In the last two weeks my op-ed about why men are retreating from marriage, hit a nerve. In “The War on Men,” which appeared here on FoxNews.com, I said women are angry. And they are. I was inundated with emails from women telling me I should be ashamed of myself for suggesting women have a role to play in the decline of marriage and battle of the sexes. One reader even told me to kill myself. No, really. Kill myself.

I don’t agree with Venker’s whole “theme” about women’s femininity, I believe in equality between the sexes. However, the response to Venker just illustrates that women can’t stand being called out in any way. If men on my blog even complain mildly about something women do, they are called misogynists, sexists and liars. This just goes to show that most women can dish it out but can’t take it. Ladies, this double standard is appalling and sexist.

134 Comments, 49 Threads

1.
VVR

When Esther Vilar went on the Johnny Carson show decades ago and said that women were also capable of manipulating men sexually, with tears and with appeals to chivalry, she got on absolute storm of insults and death threats … apparently almost solely from women.

Women are cute and nice and decent and non-violent – and if you say anything in conflict with that, they are going to bash your face in.

I am always stunned speechless when some woman claims with a straight face that women are inherently kind and gentle and compassionate and nurturing and nonjudgemental and loving. No one but an idiot would make that claim, because we ALL KNOW it’s a load of bovine excrement.

I can prove that to you in two words: HIGH SCHOOL.

We all went to high school, and we all remember what it was like. Were the young women at your high school kind and gentle and compassionate and nurturing and nonjudgemental and loving? (Pause for several minutes while we all laugh until we fall down.)

Am I supposed to believe that at some point after high school, all the women had a road-to-Damascus moment, saw the error of their ways, and became kind and gentle and compassionate and nurturing and nonjudgemental and loving? Sorry, but I’m not that stupid. The women who were hateful and vicious and greedy and vain and narcissistic in high school haven’t really changed. They haven’t shed those traits. They’ve just gotten better at hiding them.

Feminism has never been able to come up with an answer to the mean-girls problem, and I think it will eventually be their undoing. They try to deal with it by alternately embracing it (“you go girl!”) and pretending it doesn’t exist. The latter worked for a long time because it was able to hide under the cover of traditional femininity, but little by little it’s becoming exposed, and pretty soon it will no longer pass the giggle test. The problem with the former, which women quickly discover, is that women who will do it to men will also do it to other women. It comes as a shock to women when they get into a conflict and discover that they cannot don the victim mantle (even if they deserve to) because their tormenter is not a man, but another woman.

I’ll have to find the reference, but I’ve seen a study that stated that domestic violence in lesbian relationships is far higher than in either hetreo or gay male relationships. I hypothesize that that’s because in our current social condition, in a relationship where donning the victim mantle is impossible, the advantage swings to the aggressor.

In the early 90s, I worked for th Mass Eye & Ear Infirmary at Harvard Medical School. The Emergency Ward had three public service notices about DV: one for heteros, one for gays and one for lesbians. The font size for the 800 numbers were the same for the straights and the gays, but the lesbian notice was three times as big and printed in red. Apparenty there was a lot more business for them.

I asked the Duty Nurse why that was and she said, “When I see a woman come in here with a black eye and a fat lip, I know her boyfriend or husband did it. When a woman comes in here with a punctured eyeball, three missing teeth and the scorchmark of a flatiron, I know her lesbian lover lost her temper.”

When they say “Hell hath no fury,” they ain’t kidding. When a woman loses her temper, she goes at you with a 9-iron and a chef’s knife. Personally, I think hormones have a lot to do with it.

Having big muscles does not make you dangerous; losing your mind does.

Women are much more reticent to start fights in public – or at least they were back in my day, now I see videos where women are pulling as much crap as men – but they have never been reticent to start fights in private once they get comfortable with a man, know which buttons to push, and know how he is going to react in various situations.

You can’t extrapolate from women’s behavior in public to how they act behind closed doors. My life experience tells me that women can be downright vicious once they are comfortable with you and know that you are not going to retaliate against them.

As this “couple” states in their rush for 15 seconds of fame: “Yes, it’s true folks. Ivory and I are splitting up. It’s really sad. I’m really sad. I think you may have been able to tell in some recent songs. It’s going to be a hard road ahead for me, but I know that this is the right decision and that eventually we’ll both be happier in the end.

I just want to say, thanks for being out there, watching my stuff and commenting and sending me messages. Your support and love during this time of crisis in my life means so, so much. “

Of course women are angry. They’ve gotten everything they wanted. Not just equality–rights, education, employment (that was the Suffragette movement of the early 1900s, by the way)–but preferential treatment (that’s feminism, which is misandry). It’s one of those be careful what you wish for kind of things.

And now men are largely ignoring them, or using them sexually as the case may be. Hey, she offered me sex–that’s all she has to offer me, other than debt and bad attitude; I can live without the latter. So I had sex with her, so what? What does that mean? It means she offered me sex and I had sex with her. It doesn’t mean anything more than that, and it never will. If she can’t handle that, I look upon that as not my problem. No, I am not going to marry her. I’m gone.

Once, when I was in college, around my sophomore year, I met this girl at a night club. I wasn’t on the prowl or anything; I was just there to see the band. It was the B-52s. One of my friends lived next door to the bass player, and we used to barbeque with them on weekends, then go see them at the club (this was before they got famous on MTV).

Anyway, I met this girl, and she was all over me. I was naive then, early 20s, you know the story, and I figured, great, let’s go back to my apartment, which was only a few blocks away. Banged her brains out. Woke up in the morning, and she said, “It’s so nice to have a boyfriend.” Um, girl, this was a totally casual one night thing. I enjoyed it, and I like you and all, but . . .

She went totally berserk! She started screaming, throwing things around, breaking things. Oh my God! I had to physically remove her from my apartment before she destroyed it all.

Then she started stalking me. I don’t know if any of you have ever been stalked before, but it’s scary. I would wake up in the morning, get ready to go to shool, open the door, and she’d be sleeping on the concrete outside my apartment. Seriously, I am not making this up. She would follow me around everywhere. I took the shuttle bus to campus, but I had to take these long, convulted routes to lose her. And then she would be waiting outside the classroom in the hall. This girl was obsessive.

Finally, I called my friend and said, I have to move. He came over with a truck, and we loaded up all my furniture, and I moved to the other side of town. I had to change my phone number and everything.

I’m not saying this because I think I’m all that great in bed. I mean, one night, seriously? I’m telling you that this girl was psychotic.

That was the last time I ever took a girl back to my place. If she wants to have sex, and it’s obvious she wants to have sex, then take her to a hotel. Do not take her back to your place. And whatever you do, do not go to her place. If you do, she’ll think she’s in control.

I made that mistake a couple of years ago. It was stupid, I know. It was stupid at the time, but I figured, well, it’s been a while. I met this girl at a realtor’s function, and she was all over me. So I went back to her place and banged her brains out. The next day she was making appointments for me. “You need to get into commercial real estate. That’s where the real money is. I set up a business lunch for you with a commercial realtor. He’ll show you how to get into the business. And we have a dinner appoint with the real estate commissioner for Friday.”

This is how incredibly stupid this girl is. I’m alread a commercial realtor. And this guy she wants to introduce me to, do I know him? Yeah, he comes down to the office every week. And the real estate commisioner, do I know him? Yeah, I’m the guy who showed up and videotaped his wife’s dance recital. So, this stupid girl’s idea of advancing my career is to introduce me to people I already know to discuss business I’m already involved in.

But, more to the point, it’s that she thinks it’s her place to plan my career for me. I seem to be doing very well on my own. I didn’t choose this career. I resigned from teaching to help my mother take care of my father when he was dying of cancer. I only went into real estate to help my mother run the company. My family owns the company. It’s worth millions. And the last thing I need is for some stupid loan processor to plan my career for me, just because I went to bed with her once.

It’s ridiculous. It’s beyond ridiculous. The modern American girl is a sad joke. And she has no one to blame for that but herself.

Do you want to know how the last conversation I had with this stupid girl went? “And we have a business dinner with the real estate commissioner.” Well, I’m not going.

“But this is a business dinner!”

I don’t have any business with you or with the real estate commissioner.

“But I care about you! I want to help you!”

Go home, little girl, play with your doll. Click.

The modern American girl has a problem. It’s an attitude problem, and it’s her problem. The only one who is ever going to do anything about it is her.

But the real problem is with the law. Men mostly wrote the law, and shame on them for coddling stupid, spoiled, conceited little brats.

Marriage is out of the question, because the terms and conditions of the contract are completely unacceptable. Presumptive paternity, forget about it. Abortion on demand, no fault divorce, the answer is no.

The way I look at it is this. It’s a female problem. Of course, she’s angry. And she’s vicious, make no doubt about that, especially when it comes to other women. I’ll just stand on the sidelines and watch as they beat themselves up.

She could have adopted a good attitude. She could have been polite, she could have been courteous, she could have been respectful. If she had, she would be married to a millionaire today and her children would have nothing to worry about. But, no.

That is not my problem. I can get laid anytime I want. It’s her problem.

And now she doesn’t like it. Working all the time, living alone. Raising an illegimate child without a father, because some boy in a bar can’t afford child support. Yeah, I’d say that’s a real problem. She should have thought of that before she got pregnant.

When the modern American girl drops her attitude and starts seriously addressing the real issue, which is the law, the terms and conditions of the marriage contract, then I’ll start to listen. Until such time, she’ll never be worth nothing more than a tequila shot and a lie to the face. A one night stand at a hotel.

Gawain’s Ghost: “1.) Anyway, I met this girl, and she was all over me. I was naive then, early 20s, you know the story, and I figured, great, let’s go back to my apartment, which was only a few blocks away. Banged her brains out. Woke up in the morning, and she said, “It’s so nice to have a boyfriend.” Um, girl, this was a totally casual one night thing. I enjoyed it, and I like you and all, but . . .She went totally berserk! She started screaming, throwing things around, breaking things. Oh my God! I had to physically remove her from my apartment before she destroyed it all. Then she started stalking me.

2.) …I made that mistake a couple of years ago. It was stupid, I know. It was stupid at the time, but I figured, well, it’s been a while. I met this girl at a realtor’s function, and she was all over me. So I went back to her place and banged her brains out.”

I can’t help noticing the common element in these two stories. The part that concerns me is not where you went (her place in one story) but rather what you did.

The first woman had no right to throw things in your home and break them, and certainly had no right to stalk you. But if I were female and if I were she I WOULD be upset and wondering why the sex happened when there was no romantic attraction.

I do not understand why people have sex with people they just met three hours earlier, or, at least, why it wasn’t spelled out first that this was a completely casual encounter. It isn’t as though these were the only two times in history two people have…copulated…only to find that they came away from it with completely different expectations.

Well, the first one was in college during the early 80s, and that was just what kids did in those days, get laid. They still do, by the way. Most girls would have taken it for what it was, a casual encounter. But this girl was nuts. I mean, she really freaked me out.

The second one was five years after my father died. I hadn’t dated anyone for a long time. I had to resign from teaching to help my mother, change careers, and do a lot of work. It’s kind of boring really, driving around, standing in vacant homes, taking pictures and notes, then writing price opinions. I do all of my work alone, and I hardly ever meet anyone, except at the office or at a function or conference, something like that.

I knew this girl, or rather I had met her before, so it wasn’t like we were complete strangers. She was obviously interested and came on to me. I figured, well, it has been a while, so I took her to dinner and she took me back to her place. A man in his mid-40s, a woman in her mid-30s, both single, it happens all the time. It should have been completely casual. We could have gotten to know each other better, started dating–she was not unattractive–and maybe built a relationship.

But for her, the next day, not even 24 hours later, to start making appointments for me and planning my career, without even consulting me first, is not only weird, it’s insulting. But it is oh so typical.

I can plan my own career, thank you very much. I can make my own appointments. I don’t need some stupid girl to control my life. But that’s the problem, and it goes to the essence of the attitude of the modern American girl. She thinks it’s her place to plan and control the life of a man.

I have two bachelor’s degrees and a master’s degree, and now a realtor’s license. I worked as a teacher for twenty years, and as an adjunct professor in the evenings for five. I can’t tell you how many times over all those years I met a woman and took her on a date. And she would say, “You’re a teacher?! I thought you were a lawyer.” No, I’m just well dressed. “Is that all you want to be is a teacher? You’re never going to make any money.” Oh, so I don’t live up to your expectations and demands. I look upon that as not my problem.

Actually, toward the end there, before my father got sick, I was pulling in $65,000, and my living expenses weren’t $20,000. Which means I had a lot of money to spend on my summer vacations. I travelled. I saw America, that was always the plan. Just imagine, you’re single, you have three stacks of high society (that would be $30,000 cash, for those of you who are not in the know), and three months of paid vacation, all bills taken care of. Where would you go? What would you do? I went wherever I wanted and did whatever I wanted to do. Total freedom, man, it’s a beautiful thing.

Like I need some stupid girl to plan my career and control my life. Yeah, I met little Miss Wanna-Be-Married-To-A-Lawyer at the bank one day in early June. I was making a withdrawal. She was like, “Oh, my God. I almost didn’t recognize you.” Well, I’m always well dressed. “Did you go to law school?” No, I’m going on vacation. Then the teller handed me three stacks of high society, and I said, “See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya.” And left her there with a befuddled look on her face.

See, the modern American girl, it’s beneath her to date a teacher. She wants to date a lawyer. Here’s the thing. The average lawyer in the US makes about $30,000/year, less than a school teacher. It’s a fact. The US has 5% of the world population, and 70% of the lawyers. Do the math. There are not enough clients to go around.

But the modern American girl would rather date a lawyer, deep in debt with no clients, than a school teacher with three stacks of high society and a paid vacation, because she has status issues? It’s ridiculous.

It is not her place to tell me how to live. It is not her place to plan my career. It is not her place to make appointments for me. Who is she to me, my mother? I think not. My mother is a highly successful businesswoman, and she knows better than to try to tell me what to do. I accept my responsibilities without question and do what I have to do. And I will do what I have to do my way. Period. End of story.

The modern American girl has a problem. It’s a real problem, it’s an attitude problem, and it’s her problem. The only one who is ever going to do anything about it is her. I’m not going to argue with her. I’m just going to ignore her. She does not tell me how to live. If I don’t meet her expectations and demands, well, fine. I’ll just retire wealthy and let her get knocked up by some boy in a bar, so she can complain about it. She’s going to complain anyway, let her complain about that.

She could have dumped her attitude. She could have been polite, she could have been courteous, she could have been respectful. If she had, she would be in a relationship with a millionaire, and her children would have nothing to worry about. But, no, she had to cop an attitude. And so she’s worthless to any man, especially a man with money.

Of course she’s angry. She ought to be angry with herself. Excuse me, who was it that made her not marriage material? She did.

The problems with the marriage contract aside, and there are many, if she were pleasant, polite, courteous, respectful, yeah, I would have fallen head over heels for her.

But she does not plan my career. She does not make demands on me. If she cannot relate to me on an idividual basis, well then to hell with her. I’m done. She offered me sex, I had sex with her. What does that mean? It means she offered me sex and I had sex with her. It doesn’t mean anything other than that, and it never will. In the morning, I’m gone.

She, the modern American girl, has nothing else to offer me. She is not going to be my life partner. She is not going to be my helpmate. She is not going to be the mother to raise our children. I’m done. She offered me sex, I had sex with her. So what? It doesn’t mean she has total control of my life, after one night. It doesn’t mean that I have to live up to her expectations and demands, after one night. I’m doing perfectly well on my own, thank you very much. My family owns a corporation that’s worth millions. I’ll just do what I have to do, as boring as that may be, and at the end of the day, liquidate everything and retire with money.

The modern American girl can kiss my rich white ass. She has an attitude problem, and it’s her problem, not mine.

And now she’s upset and angry about it. I don’t care. If she were serious about solving the problem, she would at least discuss the problems with the marriage contract, of which there are many–presumptive paternity, abortion on demand, no fault divorce. To the extent that she is not even willing to discuss these problems is the extent to which she’s not worth listening to.

Of course she’s angry. Nobody is paying any attention to her. And why should they? She’s just a stupid, spoiled, conceited little girl. Not a woman. Men will respond to a woman. But not to some stupid, spoiled, conceited little girl.

The problem here is with the law. The law that caters to stupid girls. The law that requires men to accept all responsiblity and requires her to accept none.

She wants to go berserk and throw things around my apartment? All I can do is reomove her. And avoid her at all costs. She thinks it’s her place to plan my career? All I can do is ignore her, and do what I have to do.

She’s angry. And she’s vicious. I don’t care, and I just avoid her. She has no one to blame for her problems but herself.

When the modern American girl can wrap her mind around that, then we can talk.

“I can’t tell you how many times over all those years I met a woman and took her on a date. And she would say, “You’re a teacher?! I thought you were a lawyer.” No, I’m just well dressed. “Is that all you want to be is a teacher? You’re never going to make any money.” Oh, so I don’t live up to your expectations and demands. I look upon that as not my problem.”

—

That is absolutely how lots of American women think – and I’m a lawyer (I even make some money at it).

I don’t know if *some* American men are starting to get more misogynist – or whether they are starting to see reality – but I suspect the latter.

In any case, SOME women are out to control the dupe and his money and they are very, very, very good at hiding it.

I actually know a lot of lawyers, and I don’t have anything against lawyers. But most of the lawyers I know work at title companies. Very few of them practice law, that is are litigators.

My thing is this inane assumption that lawyer = rich. It doesn’t. The vast majority of lawyers earn less that a school teacher. But try telling that to the modern American girl who is solely concerned with status.

Assume you are a woman. Who would you rather go out with? A teacher who lives in a cheap efficiency apartment, drives a used car, and has a lot of cash in the bank, with plenty of vacation time to spend it on. Or a lawyer who lives in a big house and drives a fancy car, neither of which he can afford, is up to his neck in debt, and doesn’t have any real money.

The modern American girl would surely choose the latter. That’s how stupid she is, all wrapped up in status. He’s a teacher, so he’s beneath me. It doesn’t matter that he has a lot of money. He’s a lawyer, so he’s deserving of me. It doesn’t matter that he’s practically broke. All she cares about is status, in her warped mind.

So she marries the lawyer and complains about him, because his status job turned out to be not all she thought it was. Meanwhile, the teacher takes his money and goes on vacation.

All of my life, going back to the 6th grade, I’ve been told, “I don’t need for you to take care of me.” Okay, fine, take care of yourself. Go to college, little girl, get an education, get a job, work for a living, buy your own house where you can sit at home alone and complain about men, while you dream about the lawyer or doctor who will never come. I don’t care.

It’s mind-boggling to me, seriously. An educated, intelligent, successful man with money, what woman wouldn’t want to be with someone like that? Um, the modern American girl. She’s all about status. She wants a lawyer, a doctor, but a teacher or a realtor, no. Does it matter that the former are broke and the latter are not? It does after the fact, when she wakes up and realizes that the one she blew off is having the time of his life on vacation.

These days my income fluctuates. I work on a pure commission basis. I only get paid when a deal closes and funds. That doesn’t bother me. It is rather inconvenient, but there’s nothing I can do about it. I accept my responsibilities without question, and do what I have to do.

Just about every woman I meet says the same thing. “You’re a realtor? Is that all you want to be is just a realtor? You’re never going to make any money.” It was the same when I was a teacher. She looks down at me. She laughs at me. Does it matter that my family owns the company and that my net worth is in the millions? Of course not. She isn’t about to help me do what I have to do in any way. She certainly isn’t going to move in and help me take care of my mother, that would be way beneath her. But it’s what I have to do. I promised my father on his deathbed that I would take care of her. And that’s that. You don’t go back on a promise like that.

When my mother retires or passes away, I’ll liquidate everything, the company, the land, the condos, and walk away with millions and no debt. Where is the modern American girl who is willing to help me through this time of trial and tribulation? Nowhere to be found. I suspect she’ll be popping up when I have millions though, but I won’t have anything to do with her then.

This is the thing, and it really is the thing. An educated, intelligent, successful man with money, that’s what she wants, right? What is it in her delusional mind that makes her think a man like that would have anything to do with her? Is she all that? Is she that good in bed? No. She isn’t worth 50%. She isn’t deserving of presumptive paternity. And no fault divorce, she wants the absolute right to change her mind at any time for any reason, for no reason. How about I change her mind for her and say no from the beginning?

She’s on her own. She is not going to help me. She is not going to stand by me in my time of trouble. All she’s going to do is whine and complain, because I don’t live up to her standards. Well, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m going to retire rich. And she, the modern American girl who looked down at me while desperately pursuing some bankrupt lawyer, can kiss my ass on the way out of town.

The modern American girl has a problem. It’s an attitude problem, and it’s her problem. The only one who is ever going to do anything about it is her. I’m not. It’s not my problem. All I’m going to do is ignore her and walk away rich.

Of course she’s angry. Who wouldn’t be in that situation? She thinks she’s all that, but she’s not. And the educated, intelligent, successful men with money she meets all ignore her. Because of her attitude. She has no one to blame but herself.

Dump the attitude and get real. Or spend the rest of your life working, living alone and playing with your cat. These are your choices.

I live alone. I work for a living. I take care of my mother, as I promised my father I would. I accept my responsibilties without question and do what I have to do. Is this the way I thought my life would turn out? No, but who can see the future? I just improvise, adapt, and overcome, confident that at the end of the day all will be well. That’s all I can do.

But the modern American girl is worthless to me. She is not going to help me. Oh, she’ll be around when I have millions, but now, she’s nowhere to be found.

She can be found, for sex. That’s all she has to offer me. She offered me sex. I had sex with her. In the morning, I’m gone. I don’t need bad attitude and debt.

And now she’s angry. Of course she is. Go home, little girl, and look in the mirror. Do you see that stupid girl that made you worthless? Blame her. Don’t blame me. You laughed at me. You looked down at me. Now, I’m walking away with millions, and you’re stuck with your loser lawyer husband in bankruptcy.

When she’s willing to discuss the terms and conditions of the marriage contract, then I’ll be willing to listen. But since she’s not and won’t, then she’ll never be nothing more than a one night stand. And now she doesn’t like it. I don’t care.

I have my own life to be concerned about. I have my own responsibilities. I accept them without question, and do what I have to do. I don’t enjoy it very much, but it is what I have to do. I couldn’t care less about what anyone, especially some stupid girl, thinks about it. I just do what I have to do.

When the modern American girl can wrap her mind around this problem, which is unlikely; when the modern American girl starts to even discuss the problems with the marriage contract, which is even more unlikely; then I will pay attention.

Until such time, she’s worth a tequila shot and a lie to the face. A one night stand.

She is not all that. Having sex with her doesn’t make her worth 50%. It certainly doesn’t make her deserving of presumptive paternity. And now she doesn’t like it.

I don’t care. It’s her problem. It’s her attitude that is the problem. It’s not my problem. I’d rather have the money. And I do.

It happens that I am a lawyer, although to my regret somewhat below that average figure cited by a poster above. However, a while back I dropped out of law and taught school in California. Most of the mixers or other socialization functions I went to were Jewish-oriented. Whether that means anything I can’t say.

But that was my experience. I’d be at some such function, meet a woman who seemed attractive and bright. She’d be in the movie industry, college professor, businesswoman and the like. She’d tell me about herself and then she’d ask, “And what do you do, Ben?” I’d reply, “I teach junior high school social studies” and almost invariably the response would be, “That’s nice…I think I see my friend over there.”

Women tend to aspire upwards socially–there’s a term for that but I can’t think of it offhand. In any case, women can go out with whomever the want. What I mind is not the attitude, it’s the hypocrisy, that women look for the inner person and men are superficial.

As to men only taking a skin-deep look and rejecting a woman they don’t find especially attractive, as I’m sure most men know, “He was a nice guy but there was just no chemistry,” means “I didn’t find him attractive.” Again, no problem with the approach, it’s the hypocrisy.

If you do not reveal your expectations for an interaction, misunderstandings are bound to result. Hypothetical case:

You’re walking down the street and a stranger comes up to you and hands you a $50 bill. You say “thanks” and keep walking. The stranger summons the police. Turns out he is a deaf-mute who was trying to get you to change a fifty for him, and now he claims you stole his money. You say, “Hey, this guy came up to me and shoved a fifty in my face, I thought he was giving me a present!” The stranger signs to the cop, “Ridiculous! Why would anybody in their right mind walk up to a perfect stranger and just hand them $50?”

You can see where this is going. Each had different expectations about the interaction but neither revealed them. One was in too much of a hurry to grab the “gift” and move on, the other was handicapped in their ability to express themselves. Maybe if the recipient would’ve stopped and asked, “What is this for?” some light could’ve been shed and unpleasantness avoided. Yeah, you wouldn’t have gotten the easy $50 (which you didn’t get to enjoy anyway) but a lot of trouble could’ve been avoided.

I question the age old “women are more nurturing” myth that Venker repeats. Drawing from my experience with my three sisters, who could only manage only one child between them, and other females, I don’t see it. My one sister who did have a child often referred to her daughter and “The Bitch” as the kid was growing up. My sister who is actually the most caring and nurturing is gay.

20 years ago, when I worked in a nursing home, a female doctor was legendary for her cold heartedness and for making comments, acerbic such as, “Why doesn’t she just go ahead and die.”

As with most human qualities, there’s a spectrum or curve for nurturing. I see plenty of men who are as caring and nurturing as most women. They just don’t use baby talk and can’t breast feed. The curses seem pretty close to the same to me and the reactions of the feminists to Venker support my thesis.

Right on, DADvocate. I’ve been known to ask women what they can give me other than physical affection that a man can’t. They invariably respond that women are nurturing, either stating or implying that men aren’t. My answer is that I find men far more nurturing (although in a very different way) from American women, who are, in my experience, about as nurturing as a sidewinder.

I don’t mean to butt in or intrude upon someone else’s query, but, just for the sake of the sillies, here’s a few questions for one who “believes in equality of the sexes.”

Do you, Dr. Helen, believe women aged 18 should be required to sign up for Selective Service (the Draft)?

Do you believe a husband should be legally held financially responsible for a child that, upon DNA testing, was proven not the product of his genes (i.e., do you agree with presumptive paternity)?

Do you believe abortion on demand should be the right of women but husbands require a wife’s permission to get a vasectomy?

Just throwin’ a few things out there for the group to chew on. I remember geometry class in high school with Mr. Baker. He taught me the meaning of equal. For some reason, I don’t think people really understand what that word actually means.

Umm, yes,women should have to sign up and perhaps not do combat but other things they are capable of. No, I don’t believe a husband should be legally responsible for a child that is not his, and no, I don’t think a husband should require a wife’s permission to get a vasectomy. I talk about the latter two in my new book.

But (in a world absent child support laws), is it more wrong for a male stranger to rape (forced penile-vaginal sex) a women in an alleyway than for a female stranger to rape (forced penile-vaginal sex) a man in an alleyway?

I believe it is more wrong, it is a greater evil for the man to rape the woman than the reverse (again in a world absent child support laws) and as such I cannot believe in absolute equality between the sexes (with equality defined as equal social, legal and cultural rights and privileges between the sexes).

And if you agree with my statement above, then you too can’t believe in absolute equality between the sexes.

“Umm, yes,women should have to sign up and perhaps not do combat but other things they are capable of.”

That is not “equality.” Either both sexes are equal and should be treated equally or they are not. Do you think skinny, weak guys were not sent to combat during the draft era because they just couldn’t do the job? No, they were sent out there with a gun and with the gear and died quickly, but they were not given a bye because they were too physically weak to survive.

Dr. Helen is one of the very few women who actually DOES strive for equality between men and women. And I mean real equality, not some definition of ‘equality’ that is still female-centric and makes men expendable (e.g. Suzanne Venker).

Extremely few women have the moral fiber to see this clearly, but Dr. Helen is one of them.

I don’t think you believe that men and women are equal. I don’t think you believe women are as effective as men in combat, as police, nor as fire fighters. I don’t think you believe men can get pregnant as effectively as women can. I don’t think you believe women seek the same things from men that women seek from men in a relationship and marriage. I don’t think you believe women and men have only socially constructed roles in society that, while somewhat over lapping, are distinctly different. I don’t think you believe that these differences don’t have important consequences when both men and women try their hardest to ignore these very real differences.

I think you believe there are real biological differences between men and women, that strongly correlate with the distinctly different ways men and women view the world. I think you believe these differences have real impacts on relationships, society, and policy.

When the Declaration says “all men are created equal” they don’t mean every human is equally strong, equally tall, equally bright, equally compassionate, whatever. If Helen believed that — she clearly doesn’t — she would be an idiot. And if you think that’s what she meant, you, sir, are a dolt.

People are naturally unequal. Some will be smarter. Some will be stronger. Some will be richer. Some will have certain skills while different people do other things. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut or brain surgeon. To insist that equality mean equal outcomes is absurd. It also happens to be a piece of liberal dogma.

The equality mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is equal in rights, equal before the law and (if you’re religious), equal in the eyes of God. People should have equal rights to pursue happiness as they define it (what makes me happy may not be what makes you happy and vice versa), but equality doesn’t mean that everyone is completely equal. That would be a foolish (liberal) argument.

“This just goes to show that most women can dish it out but can’t take it. Ladies, this double standard is appalling and sexist.”

that, helen, is b.c. equality between the sexes does not exist, and never can

it’s one of those “wonderful-sounding abstractions” that appeals greatly to the heart, but is unachievable in practice, square pegs n round holes

this allows malevolent interests (e.g., government, collectivist females) to use the myth of equality to further their interests . . . indeed, “equality” is the word at the very forefront of iniquity in the western world over the past half-century

endless evil has been done in its name… most of it with a satisfied smirk

females and males are utterly different beings psychospiritually, who largely share biology, and attempting to make them “equal” in ANYTHING is an absolute guarantee of terrible pain and disaster (as we have witnessed, and will witness further)

The Left does not seek “equality”, but merely to eliminate, Newspeak-style, the original Enlightenment concept thereof — the one which the more, ah, enlightened of us recognize as “equality before the law”.

If you understand this, comments like those of Ray and Equalboy above illustrate the Left’s actual end-of-road. Not equality before the law, nor even a Harrison Bergeron/Rawlsian crush-the-mountains egalitarianism — but minds like these, utterly incapable of even grasping what their intellectual betters mean by the word.

The joke’s on them; I’d bet money that these characters and their thinkalikes in this comment thread imagine themselves to be anti-Left, and that they are fighting them by attacking “equality” — when the reality is that the “enemy” they are attacking is in fact the Enlightenment concept of equality which was crucial to the founding of this country and of the principles of individual rights.

To induce men to act this way — to feed the flames even as they imagine themselves to be fighting the fire — is a frightening power; and yet, as I have shown here, there’s no mind-control rays or anything so sci-fi; there are only ideas.

As I said in Charlie Martin’s thread on that bizarre “study” alleging low intelligence among Fox News viewers: I don’t care about how “intelligent” a man is; his ideas matter more, by orders of magnitude. More than almost anything else, a man’s ideas determine whether he lives a healthy life — or ends up an intellectual buzz-bomb dropped on his own “side”.

Off topic and probably against all modern rules of inter-gender relations…Dr. Helen, the new photograph of you on the new mast head is much nicer and more flattering than the old one. If only you can get them to put it on the home page as your new icon.
blessings

I find it interesting that Venker hasn’t mentioned the paternity fraud issue. It’s almost as if she is trying to APPEAR pro-social to men instead of actually BEING pro-social. Or am I being too cynical?

No, you’re not being too cynical. I noticed that (and a lot of other things) too.

Venker knows that the vast majority of books are bought by women. On the one hand, she claims to hold women accountable for their role in the social collapse. On the other, she’s doing the dance. She’s got to convince her critics that she doesn’t propose we go back to the 1950s (or 1850s), deny women the vote, or tell them to fetch our slippers like a golden retriever. She’s painted herself into a corner. She loathes feminists but can’t renounce all the privvies that the fembot movement has given her.

And Hanna Rosin is laughing as Venker tries to sell “femininity” to the 21st Century American female. Good luck with that.

If she wants to appeal to young women then she should orient her argument away from an inter-sexual competitive frame to a intra-sexual competitive frame. That is, the problem with feminism isn’t that it harms men as a class, it’s that it makes you as an individual women less attractive and less competitive to other women in attracting the man you want for long-term relationships.

The average young woman wouldn’t really give two hoots about the abstract class of young men, but if you sell her an ideology that ruins her chances of getting HER prince charming, then there’ll be hell to pay.

An INDIVIDUAL says some politically incorrect thing like Venkner and get vilified by women for it.

If the individual is a woman, she cowers and quits, sometimes described as “moderating her position.” Could we have arrived in this situation if that weren’t so?

If the individual is a man, he’s as likely to double down and fight. Whether he’s right or wrong, meeting challenge is the only way to become the Hero. In the argument we consider and discover what is moral, what is best and what is possible.

When women dismissed chivalry and decided to believe in the “patriarchy”, they doomed themselves in their own echo chamber.

I have little evidence to go on but I’d say that you don’t believe in equality.

When a man starts backtracking, waffling, making excuses, when he gets weak in the knees, he is rebuked.

For Venker, you’d show kindness?

What you’re saying about her is different, but your opinion of women is the same as her critics: she can be silenced by mere criticism. Even ink isn’t necessary any more, women will cave for flickering phosphors on their computer monitors. They seek to take advantage of it. You would excuse her for it. It’s the same thing.

Then don’t go on little evidence. Dr. Helen has a lengthy written history; you’ll find she’s consistently the friend of men in her writing. You will not see her back down when the claws come out from the sisterhood, either.

Well, these same compassionate, non-violent women willingly kill their offspring at the rate of a million a year here in this country, and will scream bloody murder if you ask them to slow down that rate.

Sorry to intrude, but I am interested in the aspect of the equality of “housewives” and “women who elbow heirs out of the way in a second marriage”.

I have even seen that multiple times in my small family.

The intersection with “rich people are job providers” is obvious.

The point of view that they contribute because of investments is stupid, because a good inventor or entrepreneur – getting funding instead of just getting this money like these dumb cunts – would make double use of the money.

There is a real distinction between “the rich” and “people who produce something”.

In America, the right seems to think that all “rich people” are job creators. The left seems to think that all “rich people” are just parasites who got that way for no good reason.

The truth is that *some* rich people got that way for no good reason (I say: whatever happens to them, great, because they didn’t earn that money themselves, and they don’t create jobs) – and some people got rich through their own efforts.

Housewives and second wives who are all about the money are scum. They don’t want to work, but they want lots of money, and they get their wishes for the most part. As opposed to the rest of society. Tax those parasites up the wazoo when the “host” dies.

Actually, it’s almost impossible for a rich person NOT to create jobs, even if he or she just inherited the money and did nothing to earn it.

What does a rich person do with his or her money? Invest it, so that it will generate even more money. “Invest” means that the money is lent to other people who need loans to finance new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, home mortgages, home improvements, and the like. If you have ever borrowed money for ANY purpose, even by using a credit card, it was rich people who lent that money to you. This is the concept of CAPITAL, and it drives our entire economy.

If the rich person is foolish enough not to invest any of the money, and just spends it all, well, that still goes directly to fund people’s paychecks. Are they buying yachts and sports cars and mansions? That helps keep shipbuilders and auto workers and construction workers employed — to say nothing of the armies of people who will maintain those ships and mansions and cars, and keep them stocked with the supplies and parts they consume. Do they throw lavish parties and dine at expensive restaurants? Consider all the caterers and cooks and waitstaff and busboys and housekeepers and truck drivers and farmers and grocers and distillers and vintners who receive a check for their services whenever that happens. “Conspicuous consumption” is a tremendously beneficial activity.

And, of course, these rich people pay a LOT of taxes. And, if they have any sense, they donate to charities because it reduces their tax liability.

In fact, there are only two things a rich person can do with his or her money that do NOT benefit armies of other people. One is to simply pile up cash in a vault, or under a mattress, or in a buried chest somewhere. That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, since the money would earn no interest whatsoever, and would lose value due to inflation.

The other thing is to destroy it. Make a big pile of paper currency, pour gasoline over it, and set it on fire.

No rich person would be stupid and self-destructive enough to do either of those things. So they invest or spend or donate their money, and we all benefit.

In America, the right seems to think that all “rich people” are job creators. The left seems to think that all “rich people” are just parasites who got that way for no good reason.

The truth is that *some* rich people got that way for no good reason (I say: whatever happens to them, great, because they didn’t earn that money themselves, and they don’t create jobs) – and some people got rich through their own efforts.

In other words, if all you know about a man is that he’s rich, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything about his character. So, instead of obsessing about the fact that he’s rich, you have to judge the man not by the color of his money, but by the content of his character.

Now you know something of the motives of all, whether Leftist or not, who prattle on about “the rich” as if they were some sort of subclass of humanity who should be treated differently, accorded fewer rights or otherwise discriminated against.

i consider myself a conservative/libertarian, and have witnessed this social parallax, real time in my own family. there are workers/wealth creators, who have gotten ‘well’ by doing something- real estate (rentals), created const. co., and other such endeavors; and, well, there is everybody else. let’s call them the haves and the have-nots. when one of the haves dies and leaves it to a have-not, about 1/3 of the time the have not will be broke within a short time, depending on their ability to carry on in that area. some will just live off the existing setup, and some will create even more wealth, like romney did.

same thing with lottery winners. many will go on to do good stuff with the $$$. some will just be frugal and live on the interest, or close to it, and many will blow it all and be broke again in short order. when i lived in fla. (90′s) they had a semi-regular paper/magazine that told the stories of this last group. i still remember the stories of guys crushed in dumpsters (drunk/high/whatever), in prison, d o a, and on and on.

since everybody talks about the Bible, isn’t there is one story there where the master has 3 servants, with whom he entrusts a like sum to each? he later comes back later to question each one as to the interest. there is found the answer to your query. just like in my family, some do well with riches, some do not. however, this attitude that you should hold a grievance aginst a wealthy person is morbid. what happens when you become the one with some extra bucks, you want your friends to be jealous and actively seek your demise? if folks don’t respect their favored position, they soon will be in a very different position, broke. like the ole saying goes, ‘ a fool and his $$ are soon parted’.

this attitude of punishing the wealthy is not how we got to be a great country. it has been repeatedly proven as the route to a socialist dictator, and everybody being poor, except el presidente and his buds. isn’t that what i see being created here now?

For you to have a job, someone has to buy what you’re producing, with money.

Take a few weeks to consider that idea, because it’s a tough one. If it still confuses you in a month, I’m pretty sure that if you quote this thread to a libertarian you can find a more detailed answer.

Well, an inventor who spends money makes a double contribution – he buys stuff to make his invention and then furthers the world by producing something.

The lazy housewife who spends money she got being a parasite could be replaced by anyone. You could take the money away from the parasite and give it to other people, they will spend it all the same, and some will be inventors.

For me to have a job, I have to produce something. I do as a self-employed patent attorney. I work, and people pay me for my work.

Your defense of scum like career housewives and second wives and women who use men for money is not defensible.

Economically, it is absolutely irrelevant whether housewives or other people spend the money. Actually, if you want to be fair, give that money to people who WORK (albeit at low-wage jobs) to spend. At least they WORK.

Who the heck are you people to determine who is worth the money that they have? It’s THEIR money. Who are we to take it from them and give to to someone that you deem to be “more worthwhile?”

Ecclesiastes is absolutely right.

“You could take the money away from the parasite”
That lazy housewife made someone happy enough to marry her. That’s HIS business. Who are you to judge?
“of scum like career housewives” So.. “career housewives” aren’t making a contribution to the family? Ok, then. Work outside the home is the only worthwhile work? You sound like a feminist.

But I have yet to hear a conservative / libertarian response to the allegation that lots of people with money … are not job-creators.

I really, really! welcome a response. A real response.

And finally, VVR, here’s your libertarian response. Are these people spending money? Then they are job creators. It does not matter one whit HOW they got their money. They could be rich trust fund babies. Who cares? Its their money. They are fellow citizens. And they should be taxed the same as the rest of us. Equal rights under the law.

Of all the sanctimonious claptrap. Judging people to be worthy of THEIR money and be willing to take it from them to redistribute. That is just sad.

Thank you for the defense. I know my job, my husband knows and appreciates my job, and I know that any of these guys would run screaming out the door after about a week doing my job. Neither feminists nor “wage-slave” husbands have a clue about the importance of my vocation nor the effort it takes and it shows.

Anyone who thinks that ‘housewife’ means ‘parasite, sitting at home doing nothing’ truly needs to perform that job for a week or two. Especially if that household includes kids under 5.

I do find it disturbing that so many conservative and libertarian commenters in these threads so seem to hate all women as virulently as feminists hate all men. If our point is that feminists are wrong for assuming that all men behave in an evil way, then we are no more justified in behaving as though all women are evil in their behavior. Case in point: an acquaintance just discovered that his wife has been cheating on him with his (married) best friend for several years. Both cheating spouses have been doing their utmost not to get caught. So, do we judge them as lying dishonest creeps on the basis of their own behavior, or slime one or the other as being the ‘guilty party’ because of his/her gender?

barking mad,
Mind you, everyone has a right to “not value” what I produce (taxpayers), but I do point out this kind of stuff to all the taxpayers and future taxpayers that are descended from me so they know the appropriate response when these guys want, you know, Social Security from my kids’ taxes. “You didn’t value what our mom produced, which was us”.

I’m raising them Christian so they support me in MY old age of course…

I thought staying home and raising three children the right way was worth something. I suppose I should have married someone who would do more for me than just give up her country, language, culture, friends and family to come here and raise a family with me. She should have worked outside the home, too. Which she did, but not until after our children got a bit older. What a slacker!

Please forgive us for not conforming to the popular stereotypes. I promise to try to live long enough to think I chose poorly. It hasn’t happened yet, but it’s only been 36 years…

Ac tually, you probably welcome no such thing, but here’s one: You’re suffering from the Scrooge McDuck fallacy. You think rich people have their money in great vaults, in which they count it and swim in it and generally gloat about it.

In real life, even the least useful rich person has their money in banks, and stocks and bonds, and so forth. That money they goes to other people who need loans or capital, for building houses and buying houses and marketing new products selling making products to sell. With that they create jobs, in which the money goes to paying janitors and buying Happy Meals and paying electric bi;;s and making car payments. Which creates more jobs.

Okay, how about this. It doesn’t matter if they’re job creators or not. It’s their money. Why is this so hard for you to understand? A person doesn’t have to justify their wealth to you, me or anyone else. Unless they got it by force or fraud, someone somewhere decided voluntarily to give them money, either in increments for services rendered or as a gift. But, even in the latter case, they had to get that money somewhere. And unless it was by force or fraud, it’s really none of my business how they opt to dispose of it.

Except, if your goal is to reduce the tax burden for yourself or sustain benefits by taxing someone else, you’ve just made yourself just as much the leach as the whorish wife you describe. Only by second order.

This reminds me of the story of Hercules and Theseus , the girdle of the Amazon Queen Hippolyta then enter beauty Phaedra throw away the Amazon Queen begin to look like butt ugly hag after he exposed to this great great beauty Phaedra ,I know I could not resist her :with man it is impossible driven mad like Hercules and destroy his family but let me focus on the irrestiable beauty of Phaedra and at least the greeks undertand how the wrath of the great Witch Demon Hera protector of Witch Marraige driven mad from being stuck with Zeus possessed Phaedra to fall madly in love with the son of her husband and it was not her wise will she obey and this drive her to suicide.
( i stick with the story in God’s word the Bible of Joseph thrown in hell by the woman he rejected running away half naked in his innocence saved not by Hercules but by God and it seems the more we get away from God’s word the Bible the more the pagan story lives threw us today so it seems)

“He taught me the meaning of equal. For some reason, I don’t think people really understand what that word actually means.”

There can be no equality ,sharing power is not about equality because the flawed human heart rebel and that is what my pagan post was about as the Serpent say to Eva in the garden ” you will be like God knowing good and bad” and so The head of Christ is the Father unlike the other son Satan and the head of man is Jesus and the head of woman is man
Sharing power is not about equality as protection against the forces of evil
more latter on the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ the Lord and every knee shall bend
yikes!

If not Now when? You have been given the death penalty, it is just a matter of time just like everyone else including me
read here in God’s word the Bible
Romans 5
2 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

In the process of second divorce now. Will NEVER get married again. Both times I was a complete idiot in believing that the women were genuinely in love and wanted to become one and grow older together. After emotionally manipulating me, both women demonstrated increasingly irresponsible, erratic and selfish behaviors that pushed me into bankruptcy or led to foreclosure on my home. No matter how much I earned, both of them managed to find ways to spend every penny, and whenever I tried to enact some measure of financial restraint I was the target of incredibly viscious namecalling, belittlement and emotional abuse. Granted, I have a good portion of responsibility for letting them treat me that way for far too long, but I was always raised that divorce was a “bad” thing and that a real man will just keep trying harder to make things work with his wife. Yeah, well these two finally disabused me of that masochistic philosophy. Women – at least American women – don’t want a husband. They want a slave who they can manipulate, who will provide all the money and fun they want in life until such time as the woman decides she’s sucked all the life out of the slave and files for as much money as she can get from the divorce court.
It is amazing when I read all these bullshit articles about married men living longer and being healthier. That may have been true 30 years ago. But I sleep better, have almost no stress in my life and am unfathomably happier and healthier as a single dad raising my kids than having to deal with a nagging, shrieking harpy 24/7.
So I have no pity for American women. They insist on being their needs and whims being met instantly, but they want 100% autonomy to do whatever they want without having any personal responsibility for any of their choices. When they make a mistake, they are to be forgiven immediately and the transgression forgotten, but if the husband doesn’t notice she got her hair and nails done he is to be brow-beaten for YEARS for being a thoughless, uncaring asshole.
So my kids have shown me that PS3 and XBOX are far more enjoyable and a much better stress reliever than trying to be married to a modern American woman. Not to mention that it is quite refreshing to have all the bills paid every month, money put away for retirement, and have thousands of dollars left over every month…all with no bounced check or late payment fees.

Your story sounds very much like that of my current husband. He is like the better half of me,to me, but he was so deeply emotionally wounded by both his first two wives and financially robbed by the second one that he doesn’t trust ME, though for our 10 years of marriage, I have been 99.9% honest with him. He still insists on separate bank accounts,though he always is willing to give or loan me money (and I always get to choose which it is,when I need money from him), and I pay back every penny of a loan when I say I will, always less than a month out. His second wife completely emptied their joint account and skipped town,with something like 20 checks outstanding,and payments for the new car he’d just bought had to be made,and he was months getting the checks paid off and finally had to mortgage his already-paid-for house to catch up his bills and finish paying for the bounced checks.Some women DO these things,and make ALL women seem to be money grabbing,thieving sluts. But not all of us are. Some are just out to find a nice guy to get old with.

Great article Dr Helen. I am a Mother of an eighteen year old son, um, where did all those years go? just yesterday he was eight, not eighteen, for pete’s sake. Oh, anyway, I simply wanted to thank you for educating me as to the upside down world of men in our society. Although, never a feminist, that crap swirls around in the atmosphere and for me to think that men were great always seemed odd among my family (even the guys) and friends. So, also, on behalf if my son also, thank you, for the work you do.

Being as I am still married to my wife of 48 years. We married straight out of high school and she was my girl friend and steady through school. Small school of 600 children, grades 7 through 12. So my experience is not a common one.

I remain married and faithful to her because I love her. I cannot conceive of life without her.

I see women today and observe the massive amount of pressure they come under to conform to the utopian ideals of feminism and progressivism. It works because of the destruction of the nuclear family. Even though my three sons grew up in a loving and caring household with both parents and a solid grounding in morality and honesty, they do not seek marriage willingly. They have on again, off again relationships with girls but they do not see marriage as a win/win proposition with today’s girls. Sad.

Years ago I went on a blind date with a girl that 5 minutes into the dinner started to go on and on about the oppression of women and the inequality women faced in a patriarchal society. When the check came I handed it to her and said, “I figured you would pay.” It was hilarious how all of a sudden equality wasn’t so important to her, when it would cost her money. I ended up paying of course, and went home to call my friends who set it up to curse them out. They still laugh at how well they set me up.

I thank God everyday that I learned to appreciate the goodness in my husband and son before they dumped me for being such a rude ungrateful women. They are wonderful human beings and very sensitive. I never would have known, but they put up with me, loved me and showed me what kind and considerate people they were through their daily acts of kindness and generosity. I am a very lucky wife and mom and will forever be in their debt. The WAR ON MEN exists and I am a unfortunately I was on the front lines. Thank to God for opening my eyes.

Women want “equality” to flow their way. Men will help women get promoted up the administrative ladder, but then the women help other women up the ladder. I once was checking out various Diocesan administrative flow charts. I was looking into working in Catholic schools. If the Diocese had a man in charge of the Diocesan schools, then he had women administrators in his office. If a woman was in charge, most likely all of the assistants under her were women. I looked at a many dioceses and this pattern was repeated. (Rather ironic considering how the Catholic Church is frequently and unfairly bashed for suppressing women.)

In public schools this is frequently a pattern. Once a woman is in charge of a department it becomes all or almost all female department, but men are expected to have female subordinates. I was with one school for 24 years. When we had a male superintendent, half of his ‘cabinet’ was men, half women. Once we had a female superintendent, then all first level subordinates were women. Those women had all female subordinate staffs.

Did anyone notice that in the recent Aurora theater shootings, if someone died giving protection to someone else, the one doing the dying was a man and the one being protected was a wife or girlfriend? Hardwired biology. The fellow who took off, abandoning his girlfriend and child was roundly mocked.

If you wish to understand the roots of human behavior, what lies underneath the hype, advertising and myths, then read the behavioral studies of our primate cousins: chimps, baboons and monkeys. Read some of Jane Goodall’s books. There are many revelations about human behavior in her studies of how the Alphas rule Betas, the whole pecking order. Females will control lower rank females with violence, even the killing of their children. Don’t assume humans are any nicer than the other apes.

If you’re an atheist or progressive, you know man and women are just naked apes. Even if you’re religious, you know most of us are closer to apes than angels.

It’s dangerous to generalize about men and women from experience with a small sample size. I sometimes wonder if the “good ones” get absorbed into successful relationships nobody writes about, leaving the leftover others who are mentally a little off, but attractive enough to have many, many unsuccessful relationships.

My perspective is that the cost and financial risk of marriage has increased over the last 30 years or so. When did the spending many thousands on diamond rings and an elaborate wedding reception go from something rich people did to something many women seem to feel entitled to? This has to be a huge barrier to marriage for young men. Maybe men should offer a nice church wedding ceremony, but make it clear that the “princess for a day” wedding reception party isn’t in the budget.

In terms of financial risk, I’ve met several divorced women with children who lived in homes in affluent suburbs who are clearly only able to live where they do because of the earnings of their ex-husband. Meanwhile I meet a large number of men who’ve been downgraded into an apartment in a less affluent area. Divorce appears to cause much worse long-term financial damage than job loss, fire, floods, or tornadoes. The difference is that divorce with child support payments appears to result in ongoing losses like a series of disasters every year. It should be possible to find a better way to protect the interests of the children without destroying the fathers’ finances.

My wife and I married in June, 1983. The very week we married, one of the weekly news magazines (Time, Newsweek or US News, I don’t remember) had a cover story saying “Big Weddings. They’re Back.” Big weddings had briefly fallen out of style only to come back with a vengence in the early 1980s. The article was about people – often not wealthy people – spending tens of thousands of dollars on their wedding, reception and honeymoon. In contrast, my wife and I were older college students. We got married on a Friday afternoon in the smallest ceremony allowed by law (ourselves, two witnesses and a minister) and went out to dinner. We were back in class the following Monday. Our total cost was less than $200.

Today, we’ve been married for over 29 years. Working together, we’ve built a low 7-figure net worth for our retirement. My wife worked very hard all of those years as a nurse. In some years, she earned more than I did but that didn’t matter. We were a team.

I sometimes wonder how many of those couples featured in that 1983 article are still together. I doubt very many of them are because they were so materialistic. How someone spends their own money is none of my business but, IMO, it’s foolish to spend so much money on the wedding, reception and honeymoon. People should plan their marriage more than their wedding. If I saw my fiance turn into a bridezilla, I’d call the whole thing off in a heartbeat.

We’re a “till death do us part” couple. Should I outlive my wife, I never marrying again. Back then, we had nothing. Today, I have too much to lose and the risks are too high.

And then there are–these things in a woman’s body. They have split personalities. There is Superwoman with a chip on her shoulder who, as the saying goes, needs men like a fish needs a bicycle, and there is the little helpless damsel in distress crying out for the knight in shining armor to save her, all rolled into one. And how they flick from one channel to the next seems to be very convenient for them.

Normally they are rabid Superwoman, until they screw something up or get over their heads in quicksand, at which point they flick to “damsel in distress” mode. If anybody is stupid enough to rescue them they immediately revert to rabid Superwoman mode who knows all and can do all. And they often whine to their friends that there don’t seem to be any real men out there.

What they don’t seem to realize is that there are plenty of “real” men out there, but most real men aren’t really stupid. They recognize the channel changers for the human poison they are and avoid them like the plague.

I sure am glad I found a good wife 26 years ago – one who actually likes and enjoys the company of men. And thanks Helen for the articles. You read like the wife. And if so, you’re a joy to be married to.

But my personal experience is that wifey’s type, your type, are growing rarer by the day. And my prediction is that men, especially white men, have about had enough of being blamed for all of society’s problems by the “enlightened” feminists.

And once Cherry2000 pleasurebots are perfected, and humanity spirals into it’s death throes… Who do you think will lead the charge to destroy the C2000 factory? The Women’s Temperance Union, perhaps? As if their opinions didn’t cause all of this. Hmm, could be a book or something, I s’pose.

I am a woman. Go ahead, and call me a howling, rabid sexist who ought to be put down or permanently locked up or something,but here goes…
I think that when a couple (male and female) marry, they become,or OUGHT to, UNIFIED in many respects, to love and care deeply about each other, and to avoid giving each other unnecessary pain or grief, above all, to avoid being dishonest or covering up what one is doing or about to do. And that when a married person wants to do something both enormously significant and irreversible,like an abortion or vasectomy,they ought to both ask the spouse for permission and be ready to give in if the spouse objects. What, kill MY child? What, make it impossible for you to FATHER my child? Those are VERY big deals, and to do either WITHOUT consulting with AND getting the WILLING consent of one’s spouse is a TERRIBLE thing.
There is, to me,a basic problem with homosexual marriage. If they want to have a child that is biologically one of the couple’s (many do), they actually HAVE to go outside the marriage (commit adultery) in order to do so. Either the man has to sleep with a woman not his wife (or donate his own sperm to a surrogate), or the woman has to sleep with a man not her husband (or be impregnated by donated sperm). Either way,it isn’t how children in a marriage have historically been conceived, and people who believe in and practice strict fidelity in marriage would struggle with being happy for the openly non-faithful, pregnant couple.

Not all women are nurturing, certainly I have struggled with it, it doesn’t seem to come easily or naturally to me, but I blame it on the hormone imbalance I was diagnosed with decades ago. Look at all the women who abuse or neglect their kids,sometimes to DEATH. (And the legal system lets THEM off ["poor woman, she must have been abused/had post partum depression"/etc.], but terms abusive MEN as “monsters” and throws the BOOK at THEM.)Still, I can see where nurturing IS much more of a common trait among women and girls than among men and boys.There are exceptions, yes, but in general, I think it’s the case.

On the other hand, all through my life, it is the women and girls of my acquaintance, NOT the men and boys, who have been the most emotion-driven (as opposed to carefully and rationally thinking things through and making the tough decision), the most likely to lie and betray,the most likely to worship appearances and status over long term gains and happiness,to struggle with learning from experience, the least likely to hang in for the long haul when the going gets tough. Gawain’s Ghost has them pegged on THAT. I have known many men with wonderful personalities, kind hearts and good habits who’ve, it looked to me, been set aside by girls and women because of their less than movie idol looks or their apparent lack of lots of money. The way women pursue good looking, character-free, rich and powerful nincompoops like professional athletes, movie stars, politicians and other political leaders (Barbara Walters had intercourse with FIDEL CASTRO!) is strong evidence of the shallowness of many, a mirror of the “trophy wife/girlfriend” mindset of far too many men. And the women STAY with the powerful, rich guy, even when he sleeps around or abuses her.
So I guess I’m more or less a feminist’s worst nightmare,a woman who thinks men are SPLENDID, and is faithfully married.

But it say in God’s word the Bible “all men are evil” Thus repentance is next step daily repentance of man good idea. Eve on the other hand was deceived and good hair pulling and beatings by wind rain and snow earthquake flood death of her children keep her humble while man bath in glory of great battles . Adam do a willful act of rebellion against God so he must do the great repentance

I am a second wife who so despised my first husband that I didn’t even go after alimony from him, OR our house. I didn’t want to have to spend days every year in court trying to get money out of him,and didn’t want money from such a soiled creature,anyway,preferring that he keep it to use on the 6 kids who chose to stay with him. Two and a half years later, I married a man who is financially reasonably comfortable,though not rich,and we both work full time. I know other women who left the first husband over next to nothing (“bored”, “fell out of love”, “found SOMEONE NEW”,blah blah blah)and then find that the NEW guy is,after awhile,”boring”. I think they’ve let themselves be brainwashed by romance novels and the movies. After awhile,if you’re paying attention, you get to know someone a bit, and if they aren’t impulse-driven or erratic in their behavior, they become semi-predictable. You can call that person “boring”, OR you can call them “emotionally stable” and “easy to get along with”. Alas, the unstable, impulsive, often violent “bad boy” is sold to the gullible female as “exciting” to be with,and that is how we see newspaper and online articles about violent celebrities and even convicted rapists and murderers in prison having multiple girlfriends and female fans.”Bad bad bad boy,you make me feel so good!” is both a stupid song and an INSANE way to choose one’s romantic partner,but some women have lots of trouble learning that. So MANY weeping women and girls on talk shows, often with visible wounds and bruises from a beating by a husband or “boyfriend” (if you can call him that,seriously),who reply, when, asked why they stay with him,”I LOVE him!”
Makes me ashamed of being a woman, and convinced that, as a group, women ARE dumber than men (though I am an obvious exception to that).

“Bad bad bad boy,you make me feel so good!” This is human nature as it was for Eva and her seduction by the great handsome behind the serpent in the Garden of Eden we read about in God’s word the Bible thus in the blood of all women today
“You will be like God knowing good and bad and will not die the Serpent say. But we do die then the veil and we live on through our children. What has happened to your 6 children?
But i believe the serpent did not lie since the big picture is how we do live on in the afterlife and seeing our children and children’s children flesh/soul tormented keeps us in torment in the afterlife which is why we may decide to chose amnesia to flee the pain or become psyopath below with King Lu si fer the 1st understanding of human nature distant from the holy True God.
Why did I write these words please ask? i see now you can never have peace without the river that flows to the holy True God . But a good human Father or Mother figure can help give you peaks at peace in this life
yes/no?
Please love your papa love your brother and love your son now while you still have free will time on this earth. The tears that will flow break the dam and who acre if this cause a great flood for healing sake

Women have been responsible for the death of over 53 million unborn babies since 1973. We need to stop and think about what our actions and thoughts. If I was a man nowadays, I would have nothing to do with the catty, witchy women that I see. I have a 19 year son that is working his way through vet school. He is kind, responsible, good looking and vey mature. Right now – from what he has seen he has no intention of marrying. He thinks that marriage only benefits women, especially if a divorce takes place. Very sad.

Abortion on demand does TERRIBLE things to women, quite apart from the physical damage and occasional permanent physical harm or even death. The Nazis and the Communists understood that only too well,which was why abortion on demand was legalized in Germany in the 1930s and all along in Communist Russia and China. It helps to turn women in society AWAY from motherhood,fidelity in marriage,and making a happy, pleasant home and TOWARDS a “career” and “getting ahead in the world” and “competing with men” in the workplace, while enabling promiscuous behavior in those women and adolescent girls who want to sleep around but don’t want to be “burdened with a baby”. All these trends weaken and destroy families,which the Commies and Nazis wanted to do, because only in FAMILIES would children be taught the TRUTH, NOT government lies and propaganda. (That is also the intent of indoctrinating the kids at school to “inform” on their parents.)There is a horrifying book out about this, “Education for Death”, about the German school system under the Nazis. And in modern times,a female has the “right” to even kill the baby fathered by her HUSBAND, without HIS knowledge or consent. It makes a woman’s womb,throughout human life on earth a safe,warm place for a baby to grow, a death chamber for all too many,those unfortunate to be conceived by the wrong father or at an “inconvenient” time for the mother. Abortion,militant feminism, the “Pill” and “no fault divorce”, together have led to the steep decline in marriage, and to a growing number of single men who say they will NEVER marry.

cowgirl, it is easily proved that the great majority of American women do not support abortion on demand at any time. The feminists proceed under that assumption and just see what they do when, for example, you cite the annual Gallup polls on the abortion issue.

In most states if you perform an illegal act that causes a pregnant woman’s pregnancy to end, you can be found guilty of various forms of homicide. Should not supporters of abortion favor repeal of such laws?

When a pregnancy is derived from consensual sex, it is the woman’s sole choice to abort or not. The father, even if married to the mother, has no say. If he wants the child his opinion doesn’t matter, and if he wants an abortion and she doesn’t, his opinion also is irrelevant. Given this, shouldn’t a father, even a husband, be able to disavow paternity and its responsibilities? If not, why not?

And of course, you take the most ardent feminist in the world. She goes up to a friend who is seven months pregnant. The feminist points at the friend’s belly and says, “How’s the X?” What word would she use?

I favor abortion under some conditions but I used to ask pro-choicers this question: “It has been estimated that in the last thirty years 160 million pregnancies have been terminated in Asia on the sole grounds that the fetus is female. Do you object to this and if so, on what principle?”

Silly me, I was entirely unprepared for the usual answer which was, “I don’t object.” I am not bright enough or well-read enough to come up with any reply to that.

I’m just not sure what the problem is. Men got exactly what they wanted from the sexual revolution; women are for pleasure only not for children, and the way to get there was to put women on hormones that fool a woman’s body into thinking she’s pregnant. So now she acts like a pregnant woman from age 15-45 because she’s on hormones. We knew this would happen and decided to go ahead with it anyway, remember? (Humanae Vitae, 1968? Hello?) So men and women have been profoundly unhappy for about 45 years now, but it hasn’t mattered because we have been getting what they want, pleasure rather than happiness. Only, there’s a downside for, too.

What do you want? What’s your ideal situation? Women go along with being used for pleasure while our natural capabilities are minimized, and are happy? Wrong reality for that (if it makes you feel better, I never did get that unicorn for Christmas, either). The only real solution is to abstain from sex until marriage, to seek happiness over pleasure.

Jeannette, you have reading comprehension problems if you have read any of the above if you think men want to be treated like a sperm bank with a checking account, to be discarded on demand for any reason whatsoever, as a result of the “sexual revolution”. You have issues with reading history if you think men created the Pill to sexualize women, and you don’t know anything about divorce law if you think that an intelligent man will happily put his (social, parental and financial) neck on the block simply to enjoy sexual favors. You are correct that women today conflate sexual promiscuity with achievement of some sort, if I do understand the implication in your second paragraph. Good luck if you think men are dictating to women that they be “used for pleasure.”

Women today apply sexual manipulation to personal and professional relationships the way they used to apply lipstick. You ain’t going to blame men for that; as Hannah Rosin states, it’s emancipation, power achievement, and darn good career advice all at once.

“if you think men want to be treated like a sperm bank with a checking account, to be discarded on demand for any reason whatsoever, as a result of the ‘sexual revolution’”. You’re right, I don’t think men wanted to think about these likely bad side effects of a contraceptive culture, despite the warnings. I was only a few years old in 1968 so it’s quite possible I guessed wrong on the reaction to the Dead White Guy’s warnings lol. But you seem to be implying that men didn’t want women to go on the Pill, is that right?

The reality, no matter who’s fault it is, is that the Pill works by causing a woman’s body to be fooled into thinking she’s pregnant. So they act like crazy pregnant women, for decades in a row. But hey, don’t worry; you’re on low doses of the Pill too, since women have been excreting these hormones into our water supply for 50 years (“moobs”, explained) so soon you’ll be “girly men” like the fish are already. Your sperm count is already decreasing of course.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-warn-of-sperm-count-crisis-8382449.html

These two problems are not reconcilable. Women are not going to dump their attitude and are not even willing to discuss changing the law. So, what’s a guy to do?

Well, I’ll tell you what I did when I was in high school. I would not date any girl from the school, because the lunch room was gossip central. I don’t like people talking about me and her, especially her. What we say to each other, where we go, what we do together is nobody’s business but ours. Intimacy is the essence of romance. I always only dated girls from other schools.

Hey, I was in drama. We went to 30 tournaments a year, not including one act play. So I just went from tournament to tournament, meeting drama girls and collecting names, addresses and phone numbers. It was a simple plan, really. Besides, I had these three girls who were friends of my sister. Never laid a hand on any of them, but I was their personal chaufer. I would drive them to the mall, the live stock show, the beach, no problem, and everywhere I took them and at every tournament, they would find some gorgeous girl to introduce me to so they could run off and chase boys. I just kept collecting names, addresses and phone numbers. It worked like a charm. (It helps if you win the tournament. Girls like winners.)

Summer of 78. I packed up my best clothes and went down to the bank, withdrew all of the money I had saved from doing odd jobs since I was 8. It was about $3000, which today would be about $15,000. I had money, clothes, a car, maps, and a little black book full of names, addresses and phone numbers. No one ever saw it but me. I kept it hidden under the spare tire in my trunk.

I told my parents that I was going to San Antonio to visit my grandparents. “Be careful, son.” I will. “Have fun.” Oh, I will.

I went on a journey. It was the greatest summer of my life. I just drove from town to town, everywhere from Austin to Corpus south. Pull into town, check into a hotel, start making phone calls. “I can’t believe you came all this way just to see me.” Don’t you think you’re worth it? “Do you need a place to stay? There’s an extra bed in my brother’s room.” No, I have a hotel. “You have a hotel?” Ring. Ring. “Suzie, if my mother calls, tell her I’m in the shower.” Ring. Ring. “Mother, I’m staying over at Suzie’s.” And just like that, we were at the hotel.

I was getting laid four or five times a week, and every night with a different girl. I just kept going. Pull into town, check into a hotel, start making phone calls, start making dates, until the money ran out.

Oh, I caught holy hell for it when I finally returned home. My mother was really pissed, because I had basically blown my college savings getting laid by drama girls. My father was very stern, “What do you have to say for yourself, son?” Um, can I talk to you in private? We went up to his library, and I showed him the book. He was the only one who ever saw the book but me. I showed him the maps and told him what I had done. He stared at me blankly and said, “I’m proud of you, son.”

Ah, to be 17 again. Girls, girls, girls, what is a boy supposed to do?

Now, there were several of those girls that would have made perfectly good wives. But given the circumstances, it simply wasn’t workable. The point is that after experiencing a summer like that, does any college girl think that I don’t see right through her? She’s so transparent. All of these drama girls already had a boyfriend, but he was nobody as soon as the new kid came into town.

What is there to lead me to believe that it’s going to be any different when she has a husband?

The modern American girl has a problem. It’s an attitude problem, and it’s her problem. She thinks she’s a diva. But she’s just another one night stand.

She also has a legal problem. The terms and conditions of the marriage are completely unacceptable to a man. Presumptive paternity, abortion on demand, no fault divorce, forget about it.

So, where do we go from here? Women today are barely worth dinner, drinks and one night at a hotel. When she dumps her attitude and starts being willing to discuss changing the law, then I’ll take her seriously.

Until such time, there really isn’t anything to talk about. She is not going to be my life partner. She is not going to be my helpmate. She is not going to be the mother to raise our children. She’s too wrapped up in her career for any of that. So, yeah, I’ll buy her dinner. I’ll buy her drinks. I’ll even spring for the hotel room. But after that, in the morning, I’m gone.

And now she doesn’t like it. I really don’t care. She is not going to help me do what I have to do. All she has to offer me is sex. And bad attitude and debt. That’s a done deal.

Dinner, drinks, a hotel room, and a one night stand. That’s the modern American girl for you, right there. And if she doesn’t like it, I look upon that as not my problem.

It’s her problem. It’s her attitude that’s the problem. It’s the law that is the problem. Until people start having a serious discussion on this issue, nothing will change.

And so she will remain worth nothing more than a one night stand. She isn’t worth 50%. She certainly isn’t deserving of presumptive paternity. Abortion on demand, no fault divorce, NO, I am not going to agree to that.

What’s it going to be, girls? I’m a millionaire. It’s not like I can’t afford a wife. But I wouldn’t spend a dime on you.

Go to college, get a job, buy your own house, and buy a cat. Then sit at home alone and complain about men.

That’s what you’re going to do anyway, complain about men. The first thing on your mind ought to be convincing him that the investment he puts into you is worth it. A life partner, a helpmate, a mother, that’s someone worth investing in. But, no. You’re too wrapped up in your bad attitude to be concerned about that.

You should be, though. Because all your bad attitude and abuse of the law makes you is worthless.

When women get serious, men will get serious. Until such time, marriage is a game for fools. And the men suffer more for it.

“Pope Sylvester II (999–1003) was involved with a succubus named Meridiana, who helped him achieve his high rank in the Catholic Church. Before his death, he confessed of his sins and died repentant.”

i believe the purpose of the succubus is to be the tormenting siren and this is good to purify the man because the succubus i believe is really only looking for the man who can be worthy to be called her papa serving his daughter with the wisdom from God. This i see about this Lilth and queen of Sheba
Thank the true God for sending the sirens because in afterlife seducing man may be stuck being a incubsis for what feeling like eternity and everyone see he just a whore man taking some hell kind of super viagra to keep him stiff